General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ralph Nader: 'Cowering' Democrats face defeat [View all]mattclearing
(10,091 posts)I think the main thing that was bothering me is the idea that Pat Buchanan somehow deserves a fair shake for hypocrisy (as well as Gore, Clinton, most Dems who are/have been in bed with non-progressive businesses), but Ralph Nader doesn't. And .2% is a significant number in context of the Florida margin of "victory."
Also, the stuff about being invested in tech stocks is from 2000-2002, which is shortly after the tech bubble, but not exactly a time where being invested in tech stocks was considered anti-progressive.
Again, Al Gore was on the board of Apple, and I don't see people talking about what a hypocrite he is, or how he's secretly a Republican, despite taking donations from many horrible sources in 2000. He's a corporate-friendly Democrat, so no one cares.
I understand that Nader has won eternal ire from Democrats for his role in 2000 and continued attacks on Democrats. I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion that he is somehow a closet Republican, or that his assets disqualify his work, especially when there's no evidence that he uses those assets to enhance his personal lifestyle.
Hypocrisy is something that most in the political game can be rightfully accused of; for the reasons above, I don't see Ralph Nader anywhere near the top of the list of deserving targets.